- From: Arthur Ryman <arthur.ryman@gmail.com>
- Date: Thu, 5 Nov 2015 11:27:20 -0500
- To: "Peter F. Patel-Schneider" <pfpschneider@gmail.com>
- Cc: "public-data-shapes-wg@w3.org" <public-data-shapes-wg@w3.org>
Peter, I believe this document is relevant to recursion, ISSUE-22 [1]. The WG should be informed by the approach outlined in document. However, I've gone as far as I can go in understanding it because there are some issues. If Iovka can respond to these issues I'll continue with it. Otherwise I'll propose a more direct treatment of recursion. [1] http://www.w3.org/2014/data-shapes/track/issues/22 -- Arthur On Thu, Nov 5, 2015 at 11:21 AM, Arthur Ryman <arthur.ryman@gmail.com> wrote: > Peter, > > I looked at github [1]. The last edit was by Iovka on May 18. > Therefore ReSpec is using the current date when you view it (possibly > cached for a while). > > [1] https://github.com/w3c/data-shapes/commits/gh-pages/semantics/index.html > > -- Arthur > > On Wed, Nov 4, 2015 at 9:38 AM, Peter F. Patel-Schneider > <pfpschneider@gmail.com> wrote: >> The date I see on http://w3c.github.io/data-shapes/semantics/ is 29 October >> 2015. Is this document under active development, or is this just a bad >> artifact of ReSpec? >> >> The document points at http://www.w3.org/TR/shacl-semantics/ as the latest >> published version. As far as I know, there has been no decision by the working >> group to publish this document as an official W3C publication or even any >> decision to work towards such a publication. >> >> The publication status of this document in its "Status of This Document" is >> incorrect as far as I can tell. I am not aware of any decision by the working >> group to publish it as an Editor's Draft. >> >> >> All these may be bad artifacts of using ReSpec. The net result, however, is >> that readers may gain an incorrect view of the status of the document and of >> the deliberations of the working group. Either the document should be removed >> or there should be big bold flashing red warnings indicating that some of the >> status information is incorrect any only an artifact of ReSpec. >> >> >> peter >> >> >> PS: Why should the working group care about this? The document is being >> referenced in archived documents that people outside the working group may >> come across and these people may in turn read this document and get a false >> impression of what is happening in the working group. >>
Received on Thursday, 5 November 2015 16:27:50 UTC